Theists, please give your opinion on this quote from Epicurius.

[Rael]

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

 

[pcosmar]

Free Will.
He is ignoring Free will. Choice.

Opinion of the quote. He is confused and trying to justify his confusion.

 

[Kludge]

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

What is good/evil, anyway?

 

[Original_Intent]

I would say He is able but not willing,
and I disagree that makes Him malevolent.

Saying they equate is like a 5 year old saying "You didn't give me what I wanted! You're mean!"

The Problem of Pain by CS Lewsi is an excellent book on the subject. And no it is not just a bunch of feel good pie in the sky. He addresses the question seriously and I think does an outstanding job of "breaking it down".

Synopsis:
For centuries Christians have been tormented by one question above all — If God is good and all-powerful, why does he allow his creatures to suffer pain? C. S. Lewis sets out to disentangle this knotty issue but wisely adds that in the end no intellectual solution can dispense with the necessity for patience and courage.

Synopsis:
Why must humanity suffer? In this elegant and thoughtful work, C. S. Lewis questions the pain and suffering that occur everyday and how this contrasts with the notion of a God that is both omnipotent and good. An answer to this critical theological problem is found within these pages.

 

[Kotin]

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

this is an argument I would expect from a malicious 10 year old atheist.


its soooooo dense and idiotic.

 

[Rael]

this is an argument I would expect from a malicious 10 year old atheist.


its soooooo dense and idiotic.

I'm not an atheist, but I think it is a rather interesting quote. Since it's so idiotic, it should be rather easy for you to refute it, should you choose to make the attempt.

 

[TER]

Free Will.
He is ignoring Free will. Choice.

ding ding ding. We have a winner.

 

[TurtleBurger]

I would say He is able but not willing,
and I disagree that makes Him malevolent.

Saying they equate is like a 5 year old saying "You didn't give me what I wanted! You're mean!"

I like this answer best.

 

[Theocrat]

Epicurus Refuted

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Mr. Epicurus, by what standard do you judge something or someone as good or evil?

From your premises, it seems you seek to disprove God by appealing to morality, but let me ask you something:

• When you say there is such a thing as "evil," aren't you assuming there is such a thing as "good"?
• When you accept there is such a thing as "good," aren't you assuming there is such a thing as a moral law by which you can differentiate between "good" and "evil"?
• If you accept that there is a moral law, then you must also accept there is a moral Lawgiver, but That's Whom you're seeking to disprove and not prove, Mr. Epicurus.

So, if there is no moral Lawgiver, then there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, then there is no "good". If there is no "good", then there is no "evil". So, Mr. Epicurus, what is your question?

 

[idiom]

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

I vote for not Omnipotent.

 

[Original_Intent]

I vote for not Omnipotent.

Are you a theist?

 

[misericordia]

Wouldn't it be awful if we couldn't hate, hurt, glut our greed, walk away, drown our pain, abuse, lie cheat steal lust after and sleep in on Sundays?

I for one would find it very hard not to be selfish 24-7, to freely choose the better part; love, sacrifice, life.

 

[idiom]

Are you a theist?

Yes, but Omnipotent is a *very* loaded word. God is what He is in reality, not what our definitions of Omnipotent would require Him to be.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Did Epicurus ever run into Jesus?

 

[misericordia]

are you saying he's bigger than our definitions?

 

[Truth Warrior]

What is good/evil, anyway?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/good

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evil

.
.
.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/kludge

 

[Working Poor]

I think who am I to judge the creator of the universe? I don't even really understand what evil and good are I just think I understand.

If I want to see large glimpses of God I look out. I look within to find a small piece of God.

 

[idiom]

are you saying he's bigger than our definitions?

Or smaller. But different to our philisophical definitons.

For example, God can learn, regret, Love and create things. None of these can be performed by a changeless being. That is, was God perfect before or after He created the Universe (or the solar system - depending on your take of Genesis)? Metaphysically He cannot be perfect at both points because something changed.

Omnipotence is even messier when you look at it, especially with something with a circular definition like Evil.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Epicurus (341–270 B.C.) founded one of the major philosophies of ancient Greece, helping to lay the intellectual foundations for modern science and for secular individualism. Many aspects of his thought are still highly relevant some twenty-three centuries after they were first taught in his school in Athens, called “the Garden.”

Epicurus's philosophy combines a physics based on an atomistic materialism with a rational hedonistic ethics that emphasizes moderation of desires and cultivation of friendships. His world-view is an optimistic one that stresses that philosophy can liberate one from fears of death and the supernatural, and can teach us how to find happiness in almost any situation. His practical insights into human psychology, as well as his science-friendly world-view, gives Epicureanism great contemporary signficance as well as a venerable role in the intellectual development of Western Civilization.

The Epicurus & Epicurean Philosophy web site is a modern on-line version of the Garden, introducing Epicureanism to both the serious student of philosophy and to anyone seeking useful and inspiring ideas, and helping to bring together those who are interested in it.

Follow the links below to learn more about Epicurus and his philosophy!

http://www.epicurus.net/

 

[misericordia]

Idiom, God is love, created all things, but how can all knowledge, all wisdom learn? And I don't think God regrets, but has changed tack on occasion....


Kludge, "what is good/evil?"

Pilate, "What is truth?" just before condemning Christ.

Prince Charles, "What is love?", just engaged to Di.